Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Gephardt], minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to that. Mr. Speaker, let me just ask, does the gentleman whose motion this is agree that this motion precludes any compromise with the Senate?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking minority member, for his hard work on this committee and the leadership he has provided. I have held him in high regard ever since I came here, and I appreciate his good efforts, and for yielding this time to me. Likewise, I would express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee for the excellent work he has done on this bill. I am pleased to join him and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership in this matter and for these clarifications.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that the research program described in the report is intended to build on activities currently underway at EPA at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the Health Effects Institute, and many other public and private entities. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California whether we can be assured that EPA will establish diversity among the researchers such that all stakeholders should feel comfortable with the composition of the research community which would give credibility to the results of the research.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. First of all, I thank the chairman for agreeing to participate in this colloquy to discuss how EPA will proceed with the particulate matter research program. This program will determine the scientific soundness of EPA's newly announced national ambient air quality standards, and will ensure that the regulations promulgated under these standards are based on solid scientific evidence. As we know, EPA has been criticized for its handling of the current research program. This criticism has undermined the credibility of the stated research results, and this in turn has called into question the recently finalized standards. While we want to move forward on air quality improvement, it must be justified, because the economic dislocation associated with the promulgation of new regulations is very real. The chairman is to be commended for the inclusion of the $49.6 million in the conference report for the express purpose of developing a fair and comprehensive particulate matter research program. He is also to be commended for directing the National Academy of Sciences to develop and oversee the implementation of this research program and to periodically report back to the Congress. This process should give credibility to the program and foster confidence in research results, thereby laying a consensus scientific foundation for the standard- setting and promulgation of regulations. Since the National Academy of Sciences has until April 1998 to complete this planning agenda, and since EPA will continue research activities until then, I would like to clarify how EPA will proceed with this research program in the interim. Mr. Chairman, I know that it is very likely that EPA will obligate some of the 1998 research funds before the completion of the National Academy of Sciences' planning agenda. It is important that when EPA does obligate funds, it does so in the spirit of the gentleman's directive, applying the principles of diversity and scientific integrity, and I ask if the gentleman would agree.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me explain this motion to instruct to my colleagues. The House-Commerce-Justice-State appropriation bill provides $7 million for various programs authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act. The Senate bill provides $4.5 million for these programs, which is the budget request. The Victims of Child Abuse Program improves the quality of local and Federal child abuse prosecution and case handling. It does this by identifying and implementing improved policies and procedures to assist State and Federal prosecutors in keeping abreast of modern practices in child abuse prosecution. The program also funds local and regional child advocacy center programs to focus attention on the needs of child abuse victims by enhancing coordination and support among community agencies and professionals involved in the intervention, prevention, prosecution, and investigation systems that respond to child abuse cases. Children's advocacy centers are child-focused, facility-based programs that use multidisciplinary teams to coordinate judicial and social service systems' response to victims of child abuse, Mr. Speaker. My motion instructs conferees to remain firm on the House position of $7 million for Victims of Child Abuse programs. These programs are working and working well and deserve this level of funding. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], who is the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis]. (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay]. (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the bill. I would first like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for making the Mollohan-Shays amendment in order. It was the fair thing to do. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment offered jointly with my colleague from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. I want to take this opportunity to thank him and the many other Members on both sides of the aisle, especially the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Tom Sawyer] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Carol Maloney], who have worked so hard in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution requires that we take a census of the entire population of the United States every 10 years. That means we count everyone, rich people, poor people, rural, urban, all races. We are increasingly having a problem doing this count accurately. The error rate skyrocketed in 1990 to include 26 million people with an undercount of 1.6 percent of the population, and if we do not do something, Mr. Chairman, it is estimated that in 2000 the undercount will continue to climb. That is a lot of men, women, and children that will be left out of our Nation's family, just left out, Mr. Chairman, a lot from the inner city, a lot of the very rural, a lot of poor folks just left out of the count. We can do something about this by building on sampling methods which have been a part of the census for the last 50 years. The Census Bureau wants to employ sampling, not only in this Democratic administration, but going back to President Bush's administration when Barbara Bryant, Republican appointed director of the 1990 census, started working to increase the use of sampling in the census. She says now, Mr. Chairman: ``I am very much in favor of the plan the Census Bureau has. It builds work that I started on back in 1990.'' Well, these plans and recommendation are good. It is also good that this bill contains $381 million to plan and run tests next spring for what could be the most accurate census in our Nation's history. But there is a very bad provision in this bill, the Hastert substitute which calls for a constitutional review of sampling, and during that review, this provision kills sampling by prohibiting the Census Bureau from spending any money on sampling planning. If the Census Bureau cannot spend money planning for sampling, then we cannot use sampling in the 2000 census; it is just that simple. Now, Mr. Chairman, the amendment the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I offer removes the Hastert prohibitions and replaces them with the most reasonable language contained in the Senate-passed bill which lets the Census Bureau test scientific sampling methods so long as they are not irreversible. And our amendment goes one step further. We propose to create a board of advisors for a fair and accurate census. This body would be made up of three individuals, one appointed by the President, one jointly appointed by the Speaker and the President pro tem of the Senate, and third, the Comptroller General. The first two appointments shall be former Presidents or men and women of similar stature. The main purpose of the board would be to observe and monitor all aspects of the preparation and the implementation of the 2000 census to assure the process is not in any way manipulated. Mr. Chairman, those who object to sampling use three main arguments which I think can be soundly refuted. In their first arguments, opponents of sampling cite the Constitution. They assert that the Constitution requires an actual head count of the population. However, separate opinions issued by the Department of Justice under Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton, bipartisan in nature, all concluded that the Constitution permits the use of sampling and statistical methods as a part of the census. Stuart M. Gerson, assistant attorney general, Civil Division, in the Bush administration, concluded in a July 1991 memorandum to the Commerce Department's attorney general that the meaning of the term ``enumeration of the Constitution'' is, quote, more likely found in the accuracy of census-taking than in the selection of any particular method. Continuing, he says, nothing indicates any additional intent on the part of the Framers to restrict for any time, for all time, the manner in which the census is conducted, end of quote. Additionally, on this issue of constitutionality of sampling, Mr. Chairman, Federal courts have uniformly upheld the use of sampling. For example, in the City of New York v. Department of Commerce, a 1990 case, the court concluded that, quote, because article 1, clause 2, requires the census to be as accurate as practicable, the Constitution is not, is not, a bar to statistical adjustment. In their second argument, Mr. Chairman, opponents of sampling say that it is bad science. Quite the opposite. The experts and statisticians disagree. After the 1990 census, the Congress asked, because of the bad count, the Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences what could be done to make sure that every person in our country is counted in the 2000 census, unlike the 1990 census. And the National Academy of Sciences recommended sampling, a greater use of sophisticated sampling techniques. Further, the National Research Council, the American Statistical Association, and the General Accounting Office all have endorsed the use of sampling, the increased use of sampling, in the census. Barbara Bryant, again, census director under none other than President Bush, had the following to say in a recent letter to Speaker Newt Gingrich: In the long run, our Nation is best served by accuracy. Sample surveys to estimate those who will not or cannot be counted in the 2000 census after the Census Bureau has made every reasonable and good-faith effort to voluntarily enumerate them will increase the accuracy of the census. Mr. Chairman, in their third argument, opponents of sampling say that the Commerce Department will politicize the results of the census. While I do not in any way share this view, its nature makes it impossible to refute through fact or expert opinion. It can only be refuted through a guarantee of careful oversight, and that is precisely what the Mollohan-Shays amendment does with the board of advisers for a fair and accurate census; it assures oversight. Mr. Chairman, having refuted the three most used arguments against sampling, only one remains: Fear, the fear that using sampling will affect the political makeup of the House of Representatives. The real manipulation going on today is the Republicans' majority attempt to control funding to prevent the Census Bureau from using the one technique all the experts say will yield the most accurate census. And why are they doing this? By their words, it is, they indicate, that it is because they are afraid of what will happen if every person in this country is counted, afraid they may lose seats in the Congress. I do not agree with that view. It is a false fear. But in any event, let me remind my colleagues that the purpose of the census is to count the people of our Nation, not to ensure that any political party controls the Congress. We should strive toward accuracy and let the political chips fall where they may. To quote the recent commentary in a Business Week magazine, Census 2000, Math, Not Politics, Please, end of quote. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by reaching out to my Republican colleagues, perhaps some from States that had a large undercount in the 1990 census. We cannot pass this amendment without them. Join us in fashioning a census where we count all women, all men, and all children, where we do not leave out four or five or six million inner city, rural, and poor folks. Let us take advantage of this historic opportunity in a bipartisan way to have the best census ever. Vote for the Mollohan-Shays amendment. Following are excerpts from decisions of several Federal courts which have considered the issue of the constitutionality and legality of use of sampling and statistical adjustment in the census, and from legal memoranda by senior Justice Department officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: ``Although the Constitution prohibits subterfuge in adjustment of census figures for purposes of redistricting, it does not constrain adjustment of census figures if thoroughly documented and applied in a systematic manner.'' Young v. Klutznik, 652 F.2d 617, 625 (6th Cir. 1981)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer]. Along with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] the gentleman from Ohio has been extremely active on this issue. He is knowledgeable and has done an extremely good job.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel]. (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] to speak to the Milwaukee representations made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].